Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Leonard Nimoy

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Charles Xavier is pushing 70 years of age by the time of the events of the X-Trilogy, yet he's played by a man - Patrick Stewart - who, at the time of The Last Stand, was only in his mid-60s, so the age of an actor doesn't necessarily or even automatically conflate to the age of the actor playing said character.

The Mother daughter relationship was my first thought for any easy explanation when I saw this debate yesterday.

Its unlikely but I would like to see that original X-men films take place earlier than they were made. In their universe technology advanced at a much fast pace. Which would be consistent with how tech is portrayed in superhero comics in general. I think this would solve some of the issues of ages. I would place them in the late 80s early 90s.

Based on what we've been shown, the late 90s/early 2000s would be a better fit. Here's how I'd re-jigger the timeline based on what we know:
1962 - First Class (confirmed placement)
1973 - Days of Future Past (confirmed placement)
1975 - Origins: Wolverine (confirmed placement if not scrubbed from canon)
1980 - Xavier and Erik visit Jean (twenty years before X-Men: The Last Stand)
1990 - Young Warren tries to cut out his wings (ten years before X-Men: The Last Stand)
2000 - X-Men, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand

I put all 3 films in the trilogy as taking place in the span of a single year because, Presidential actor differences aside, their events seem to take place fairly close together.

__________________Starbuck: We're all friendlies. So, let's just... be friendly.
"There is no 'supposed to be.' It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

Remember though that "X-Men" takes place in the "near future" (pretty sure this has been pointed out by someone in this thread before) not exactly when the film came out, so it's possible that they're a couple years "ahead" of our present time, and I think it's feasible that the trilogy could take place within a year...perhaps 18 months or so. We don't know how long Logan spent with his search for Weapon X at Alkalai Lake in between the first two films.

^ 2000 would count as 'the not too distant future' from an in-universe perspective.

BTW, I left The Wolverine out of the timeline because we don't know exactly how much passage of time there's supposed to be between TLS and its events.

__________________Starbuck: We're all friendlies. So, let's just... be friendly.
"There is no 'supposed to be.' It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

^ The movie itself... at least according to all of the info I found, although I just discovered some additional info suggesting that it actually takes place mainly in 1981, which would make things work even better if the X-Trilogy's events all take place in 2000 because it would place Xavier and Erik's visit to Jean and Xavier's appearance in O:W within a year of each other.

__________________Starbuck: We're all friendlies. So, let's just... be friendly.
"There is no 'supposed to be.' It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

Doesn't Mariko say to Logan in one of the trailers that she's been searching for the Wolverine for a "year"? So given that it takes place after "The Last Stand" we can at least assume that it takes place at least a year after the events of that film, although still not exactly knowing the actual date.

Yeah I was just looking at the wiki page, stating it starts in 1975, then six years later (to 1981)

I just wondered as the Three Mile Island incident occured in 1979, and isn't in the movie kinda like their version of it. Been a while since I watched it.

It's a movie, so it wouldn't be implausible for the script to have fudged the details a bit from real-life events so that the Three Mile Island incident takes place two years later than it did IRL.

Admiral_Young wrote:

Doesn't Mariko say to Logan in one of the trailers that she's been searching for the Wolverine for a "year"? So given that it takes place after "The Last Stand" we can at least assume that it takes place at least a year after the events of that film, although still not exactly knowing the actual date.

Good point; so, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume TW takes place in 2001 if not later according to my timeline.

__________________Starbuck: We're all friendlies. So, let's just... be friendly.
"There is no 'supposed to be.' It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

__________________
"Eccleston was a tiger and Tennant was, well, Tigger. Smith [is] an uncoordinated housecat who pretends that he meant to do that after falling off a piece of furniture." - Lynne M. Thomas